BcS strikes again

[Gary]

Michigan got robbed, they should of played Cal, now we're left with whoopin up on the Longhorns .

[JQK]

Texas plays in the Big XII South. That's a tough lil' place to play.

Cal plays in the Pac10. Other than SC.... who'd they play?

I think you guys are focusing too much on the fact that Cal almost beat SC. Almost doesn't count. Both Texas and Cal lost to teams that are playing for the National Championship. That's a wash. If you look at the two team's schedules, Texas had a tougher road. I would give my nod to Texas.

I think what really ticks off Cal is that Pittsburgh with it's 8-3 record gets to play in the Fiesta Bowl, one of BCS bowl games while Cal gets to play in the Holiday Bowl. Texas is a better team and deserves to be in the Rose Bowl I believe, but there is a great injsutice to Cal somewhere.

And that is where i agree with you.

BCS should go by rankings alone, not who wins what conference.

[winghaz]

The only good thing about this whole thing is that the Texas Longhorns band, which is a very cool marching band, will be marching down Colorado Boulevard in the Rose Parade.

[Geoff]

On College Gameday show on ESPN they were saying that if they kept the BCS, they would have everyone qualify by the standard currently set for at large bids. That would put Pitt out of the race and open a spot for a more deserving team.

[OnWis97]

No school that schedules The Citadel, La. Tech, and Louisiana-Monroe (as Auburn did) should even claim they had the nation's toughest schedule.

Those three reasons right there, kids, are why Auburn isn't playing for the national championship.

That's an interesting point. They should have learned something from Kansas State.

Nevertheless--it's not just the bad teams you beat that hurts you, but the good teams you beat that help you and I think Auburn beat the most good teams. USC beat Va Tech (and good for them for scheduling a real team or two outside of conference), Cal and ASU. Those are the good teams they beat.

Oklahoma had a couple weaklings on their nonconference--though at scheduling time, Oregon was better. OSU, Texas and A&M are good wins.

Auburn DID have a very weak non conference and they are likely looking in a mirror over taht now. They had good wins at Tennessee (then beat them again which is not easy to do) and vs LSU and Georgia. I think they had the toughest schedule in terms of the hardest games.

This is the problem--I happen to think that USC should be left out (since you HAVE to leave one out), you happen to think it should be Auburn and other think Oklahoma. Any of the three teams would have the right to feel screwed if they were the one left out.

It's too subjective. Subjective on #16 vs #17 in a tourney is much better than #2 vs #3 with undefeated teams that have almost no common opponents.

[jrh31584]

My playoff system:

0. Season is slid backwards so that all games are finished by Thanksgiving weekend.

1. 8 conference champions, chosen by selection committee and 8 at-large teams, also chosen by selection commitee.

2. Teams are seeded 1-4, with 4 teams of each seed.

3. Teams are bracketed such that teams cannot face regular season opponents or members of the same conference until as late as possible.

4. Scheduling is easier seen than explained:

At Pasadena

December 2

#2 Georgia vs. #3 Boise St.

December 4

#1 USC vs. #4 Miami

December 11

UGA-BSU winner vs. USC-Miami winner

At Tempe

December 2

#2 Utah vs. #3 Iowa

December 4

#1 Texas vs. #4 Tennessee

December 11

Utah-Iowa winner vs. Tex-Tenn winner

At Dallas

December 2

#2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 LSU

December 4

#1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Michigan

December 11

VT-LSU winner vs. Okla-Mich winner

At New Orleans

December 2

#2 California vs. #3 Louisville

December 4

#1 Auburn vs. #4 Florida State

December 11

Cal-Lou winner vs. Aub-FSU winner

At Miami

December 23

Rose Bowl winner vs. Fiesta Bowl winner

December 25

Cotton Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner

January 1

Semifinal winners

5. Lesser bowls would still exist for non-playoff teams

6. The 5 sites would be chosen every 5 years, and rotated so that each site gets the national championship once per cycle.

[random]

There is not going to be a 1vs.2, 3 vs. 4 playoff next year. There will be a 5th BCS game [for the 2006 season, by the way], but it will not be a second championship but simply a way to put 2 more at large teams into the BCS. Also it is being tweaked so that its easier for a mid major team to grab one of the 2 new spots.

Expect a possible "second championship" after that, but the extensive playoff system that you guys seem to want will not happen. I could see a 4 team playoff sometime in the future, but even that would be controversial (Texas or Cal?).

As for Auburn, they dont really have a complaint. Its not just the BCS computers that have them #3 its also all the coaches and the media. When 3 teams are undefeated someone has to be left out of the final game. And the BCS was created to do just that.

Remember, in the old days, USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn would all 3 go to different bowls and beat up on some other poor bastards. then at the end of the bowl season, the [biased] coaches, and the [biased] media would decide the champion. This year this would likely be USC, which is also incredibly suspect since they are only number 1 because they were anointed #1 before playing a single game and havent lost since. To me, thats much more unfair than an imperfect BCS.

As much crap as the BCS causes, it produces a more real champion than the old fractured bowl system weather you like the system or not. It also [generally] produces some exciting games at the end of the year and [generally] eliminates the shared championship, allthough the doomsday scenario unfolded last season. All in all the BCS is not great, but its better. Lets hope for a "second championship" or a 4 team playoff system when the next contract expires in 2010. Until then, lets enjoy this as a way to keep people who like debating about sports employed and happy and realize that a big time playoff will not happen.

[DEAD!]

There is not going to be a 1vs.2, 3 vs. 4 playoff next year. There will be a 5th BCS game [for the 2006 season, by the way], but it will not be a second championship but simply a way to put 2 more at large teams into the BCS. Also it is being tweaked so that its easier for a mid major team to grab one of the 2 new spots.

That's what I suspected. I knew that that fifth game being a true national championship game was too good to be true. I mean think about it, the colleges making sense of college football? What a bizzare concept

[rockchalk]

I don't understand why they don't just go back to the original Bowl Coalition. It was simple (average of AP and Coaches polls) there were no computers involved and everyone knew who to blame in case of a screw-up. Of course, I would make a few changes to it, most importantly including the Pac-10 and Big 10. The bowls would have all of their historical tie-ins and everyone would be happy (Yes, I know that would never possibly happen, but hey, I can dream, can't I)

Orange-ACC (VT) vs. Big East (Pitt)

Cotton-Big 12 South (OU) vs. at-large (Cal)

Rose-Big 10 (Michigan) vs. Pac-10 (USC)

Sugar-SEC (Auburn) vs. at-large (Texas)

Fiesta-at-large (Utah) vs. at-large (Boise State)

You could also swap teams to make a 1 vs. 2 matchup, which in this year would be easy by just flipping Cal and USC in the Cotton and Rose Bowls. Another change I would make, which should be evident in my matchups, would be that if a team from the Big 12 North won the conf. championship game, they would go to the Orange Bowl, while the most deserving of the Big East, Notre Dame or the Big 12 South champ would play in the Cotton Bowl. Also, if one of the conferences had a down year, (Big East this year, Big 12 North) their champion is not guaranteed a spot in the Coalition. Any comments about my personal solution. (BTW, this is meant as an alternative to a playoff, I know that would be best, but frankly, it isn't going to happen)

[random]

Well the bowl coalition formula wouldnt work, #1 because excluding the Big Ten and PAc 10 would just create more problems, it be a step backwards. Also, as far as averaging the polls goes, what if this year the coaches had put Auburn #2 and Oklahoma #3? Then What?

Although you are right about the regional tie-ins, i'd like to see those respected a little more.

[rockchalk]

Well the bowl coalition formula wouldnt work, #1 because excluding the Big Ten and PAc 10 would just create more problems, it be a step backwards. Also, as far as averaging the polls goes, what if this year the coaches had put Auburn #2 and Oklahoma #3? Then What?

Although you are right about the regional tie-ins, i'd like to see those respected a little more.

First of all, I'm not the only one who thinks like this...ESPN.com Secondly, I already mentioned that I would use the Big 10, Pac-10, and the Rose Bowl, but keep everything else the same.

EDIT:Trev Alberts said the exact same thing today on PTI, maybe something will come of it after all....Nah, FOX has already spent too much money.

[OMMF]

Play-off. I don't understand the presidents stances on this. There has got to be a huge amount of money to be made in a playoff system. Have companies sponsor each game. 16 teams, that's 13 games. Let the Other 100 bowls either die, or take the rest of the bowl eligable teams. Hell, add bowls! Just get some sort of playoff system in there! Why is this so hard???

I WANT A PLAYOFF TOO!

It seems to logical.

The issue it hand is scheduling. Presidents dont approve a playoff sysytem for several reasons:

1. It adds 1-3 more games for participating teams.

Thiscreates hardships on the student athletes.

Yeah because missing 3 days of school to play a football game is much worse than being gone for basketball in Hawaii for a week during the Chaminade tournament or in Alaska for the Great Alaskan shootout. They keep saying a playoff would cause a hardship but it just doesn't hold any weight for me. All the other sports play more games and more away games and no one is complaining about how much time they miss.